Several people in this thread seem to assume that an evolutionary leap upwards to homo sapiens anarchisticus would either precede or be the result of a switch to anarchism
How would you come the conclusion that doctors would be unnecessary ? Or hospitals for that matter. What you get rid of is anything hierarchical in structures. Nothing less, but nothing more either. It's the same people that would make up the fabric of society after all.

As for the questioning everything vs. nothing, when questioning nothing, the options an individual can choose are reduced to one, viz. the system that has issued the 'question nothing' rule. On the other hand, when everything can be questioned, the options for the individual are literally unlimited, at least to the extent of existing or imaginable ideas.

The issue of real education is a whole field on its own, not necessarily linked to anarchism. It would also massively benefit any real democratic system. For that matter, the absence of a real educational system, or the tendency against it, is a prime indicator to see where a society is heading. Dumbing down the population, implicitly or explicitly, is quite helpful for the Goebbels' of any era.

A few of the core principles for a real education could be the following. Note that these are personal and not 'the anarchistic party line', obviously because a partyless system has no party line.

First of all, the basics of every field are to be taught. The extreme specialization, with the sole purpose of rendering people 'employable', towards singular subjects of today leads thereto that hardly anyone is capable of understanding the issues of a globally intertwined world, let alone can evaluate whether their alleged representatives are making sense in the way they represent these.
It goes without saying that if there are rational alternatives in any field, all are to be taught, without indicating a bias towards any of the alternatives.

Second, the study of each field is to include contemporary research. It is almost unimaginable but a number of fields, as they are approached today, are outdated to the extent of at least a century. This is particulary true for physics. The complete absence of relativity e.g. in the curriculum except for, again, specialists, is akin to teaching in the 19th century that the earth is a flat disc. (Before anyone might get his or her knickers in a twist, allow me to state that it is not necessary to include the full mathematical system of fields such as these in the curriculum. A basic, yet real, understanding suffices.)

Thirldy, remove all bias from the curriculum. Specifically history is taught today as a eulogy of nationalistic, and sometimes even racial, values. Approach history from a global perspective and when there are conflicting, rational, versions, teach all of them. Another bias to be removed from the history curriculum is that of class. It is almost exclusively from the perspective of the upper and middle class (in the correct sense) that events are interpreted today.

In short, teach the full scope of up to date human knowledge at a basic level in a way as objective as possible. This alone would most likely be sufficient to allow the population to recognize most of what current official statements and presentations of issues are : bullshit.

And that which some might have been waiting for : religion is a private matter and has no place in schools. People can organize themselves in churches for that. Even hierarchical ones if they are that insecure, it would be harmless as there would be no means of imposing it upon others.

Doctors are created by a hierarchical structure. Remove the structure and there is nothing to create them.

Hospitals are created by a hierachical structure. Remove the structure and there is nothing to create them.

If anarchism seems incapable of producing these things. Or rather, you've given no explanation of how a doctor would come to be, or a hospital come to be in your anarchist system. Your anarchist system seems entirely dependent upon a capitalist market system to provide everything.

What do you do when all the capitalist created goods run out?

No, question everything is the same. If nothing can be trusted, nothing can be learned, nothing can be changed.

The potential for fascism under a liberal democratic market regime is real. Throwing away the system on the basis of this risk is foolish - particularly given that the alternative system proposed has an even greater likelihood of potential fascism (by removing institutional structures, you remove institutional barriers to fascism).

Humans by nature seek to hold 'party lines'. We are a social animal. We cluster in social groups. Not only physically, but in our opinions too.

The material advantage of specialization was demonstrated by Adam Smith.

Roll out the Intelligent Design textbooks!

But isn't a textbook itself authoritarian?

Scratch an anarchist and I'll show you an aspiring authoritarian. They command what must be taught.

This anarchist education seems to be full of rules and structures and authoritarian decrees.

And I 'triple down' on my accuastion of utopian.

You can't make humans into some special ethical being by applying some magic education.

And to even suggest it is authoritarian. What if people really don't want to be educated and don't like it? We're talking about human beings here.

What? More authoritarian rules? Where's the anarchism part?

Another authoritarian rule.

All these authoritarian rules are going to need some authoritarian structure to enforce these rules.

And I'm hard pressed to see anything even remotely resembling an 'improvement' upon the present system here.

And I'm not going to accept any crackpot Marxist dogma about some necessary 'transition phase' where authoritarian capitalism is used to support the system.

Anarchism must be able to stand on its own or it is not a substantial system at all.

I was waiting for that one too.

"No rules man cos we're anarchists but we'll apply the most authoritarian rules for an unspecified period following the revolution."

Those two answers seem the only options to me as well, but like I said, I'm unfamiliar with the tenets of anarchism. I was hoping WOI would offer his perspective?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Are you actually serious here ? 'doctors are created by a hierarchical structure'?
Doctors are people who study medicine. That's it. You don't need any system for that. An isolated individual on a deserted island can do it, if he has the necessary books with him/her. And it's irrelevant whether these books were produced in a capitalist, feudal, communist or anarchist society.
It's the same with buildings. Is capitalism somehow necessary to make bricks and mortar. I suppose that in that case, the whole Soviet Union must have been devoid of any infrastructure and that any claim thereof is a conspiracy theory ?
What weird assumption is this that every artefact, and even humans themselves, are the product of capitalism ?? We have actual functioning non-hierarchic free associations of doctors over here.
Where does it say this is a necessary condition to production an sich ? There already have been anarchist economies on the scale of countries (Ukraine). I really don't see your problem here.

Having a bad day, Rabbit ?
How one comes to the conclusion that the complete absence of authority, i.e. the very lack of the condition quoted in the definition, would re-emerge as authoritarianism is beyond me frankly. An absense of light must be quite blinding.

Could you clear these two issues up ? There must be some linguistic or cultural issue of definitions in play here.

If you doctor me and do something wrong, I'll sue you into oblivion!

Who's going to give you malpractice insurance without a properly hierarchical or bureaucratic body to accredit a license attesting to your competence?

Or does everyone have to become their own doctor?

Soviet-style state capitalism? Aggregating all discretionary power of capital to the authority of a political body doesn't negate the principle of market supply and demand. The Soviet system collapsed internally due to failure of supply and demand markets. This produced a political crisis.

I suppose the irony of your appeal to the example of an authoritarian state enterprise as a viable alternative form of building construction is unworthy of comment here? Why can't you give me an anarchistic example of how such an institution or building could come to be? Sure the Soviets did it - anyone can conscript labor with force!

Given the definition cited, capitalism is the entire source of our socio-eco-political system for the last several hundred years. It is entirely responsible for the industrial revolution and all subsequent technological innovations.

In other words, our cars, our telephones, our computers, our nice warm houses with electricity and central heating (or air-conditioning) and everything else in our lives has all come to us through the operation of capitalism. Capitalism has proven its ability to create and deliver this stuff that we all seem to love.

Then I must say that your definition of a non-hierarchic model appears to be obviously a small and specialized thing - suitable perhaps only for small elite groups operationg within larger capitalist models?

Please remember that all of the funding for your state-financed hospitals and medical services for the citizenry is paid for out of general tax revenue of the state. That tax revenue is derived from private (capitalist) commerce.

Sure a body or association of well educated doctors can probably organize and regulate themselves quite well - they can probably even sufficiently run a hospital as well or even manage the construction of the building. But who is going to supply all the concrete and the cranes and specialized gizmos? Who pays for all that? Where will this stuff come from? How can a non-hierarchical association of doctors conjure up an MRI machine? Those things cost lots and lots of money (which means lots of highly specialized effort and resources).

Timeframe please.

Not at all. The two polarity positions deny all possibility of alternative or comparative reference.

In such a situation, only a middle path somewhere between the two extremes has any real validity or utility.

I don't believe that the human passion for leadership and followers is entirely some conspiracy of capitalism or government. It appears to me to originate quite naturaly within all kinds of human social groups.

Ergo, wiping away all institutional, authoritarian and/or hierarchical structures just produces a vacuum of such things and thus newer, probably inferior, less house-trained and probably generally more nasty ones will be erected in their place - very quickly. Of this, I have no doubt. Humans can be nasty very brutes.

So that is why I equate your anarchist revolution with authoritarianism. Human politics abhors a vacuum. A Caesar will always rise in times of anarchy.

Yeah. I believe the term is human nature.

I hold that humans are heirarchical by nature of adoption/adaption of the social group. Our 'pecking order' credentials go all the way back to our days as Chimpanzees (figuratively speaking). As Aristotle says, we are a social animal. No amount of 'special education' is going to change this.

You can't teach self-confidence and you can't teach self-respect. These things are necessary for all people to function in your anarchist utopia. These things are not always available to all people. Some just don't and won't ever have them. What becomes of them? Charity cases? A mob?

I'm thinking they will follow their Caesar and burn you in effigy as they re-establish institutional structures in their lives - all hail Caesar!

Do you consider anarchism to be a viable possibility on a global scale at present, and if not, what would need to change for it to be globally viable?

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

That litigation obsession is a specific cultural trait. On a global scale it is quite rare and therefore cannot be an innate property of any system. It probably does more bad than good anyway as the increased cost of medecine reduces access even further.

If market supply and demand is this widely defined, then it is also present in anarchism. And it would be a much more free market, as there would be literally no impediments to trade, while in today's society, even amongst the largest proponents of the idea, these are legio.

There is no irony. The example countered the claim that only capitalism is capable of producing goods. If you want other examples, I could provide e.g. China in the 14th-15th century (China’s empire of exploration , by Attilio Jesus, ancient Egypt, the Aztec empire and so on and so forth. Granted, these were authoritarian systems, but that is not the issue here.

No, it is contemporary with it. Proving causality would be a whole different matter. It is in fact not a falsifiable statement as there is no way of ascertaining whether or not the same industrial revolution would have occured if the circumstances were different.
What if James Watts had had an accident at the age of 5 and died ? All the kings's men and all the king's horses couldn't bring a steam engine about.

Same here. Capitalism has and so have all other systems in their respective geographical and temporal frame. What you are leaving out is that this particular system has created this for the few at the expense of the many, on a global scale. Without the usurped resources, brought about by colonisation, the succes story, if it is one, would have a much bleaker face.

No, the typical node might be small, which is a good thing in itself, but nothing stands in the way of all necessary nodes cooperating in a coordinated fashion. A coordination, which, incidentally does not imply a hierarchy. Kropotkin has shown it quite clearly that this is the original structure of human interaction.

These are not state financed. These are cooperatives. We even have large banks which are non-profit and cooperatively owned. Heck, half of the midfield in society works in this fashion over here (agricultural cooperatives, insurance companies, you name it).
Are you saying there is nothing of this kind in North America ?

Similar associations in the field of concrete, cranes and specialized gizmos. Since you allow it for doctors, why not for blue collar workers ? Do I smell class prejudice ?
Money is just a tool that allows to accumulate resources. It is not as if there would be no resources when there is no money. You're arguing as if everybody will instantly lose all capability because of a politico-social change. As said elsewhere, the people remain the same. Or do you suggest we blow everything up just to make a point ?

I was referring to the Makhnovtchina, of which a description can be found here: Guerin - The Makhnovtchina If you research it, stay away from Soviet sources on this, as Trotsky rewrote the history on that era.

Based on what ?

It is not a conspiracy. It's the logical result of centuries, indeed millennia of authority-based education and political organization. It is pretty clear that improvements in education have already brought about a shift in the perception of authority. It is not so long ago that kings were considered divine. The very Magna Carta you mentioned in another thread, and the ensuing liberalism, is clear evidence that increasing knowledge and wider education does lead to shifts in the perception of the role of authority. All I do is take it one step further.

Humans can be nasty very brutes, indeed. And nothing in authoritarian systems has ever been capable of addressing this. The political side of the system you champion has even given raise to an increase in scale for this brutality. If cars and phones are to be attributed to capitalism then also Auschwitz, Dresden and Hiroshima. You argumentation seems to lead to the conclusion that these and similar things are considered as a small price to pay as long as the affluent minority (globally) stays such. If capitalism is so all-encompassing that it gets accredited with all the contemporary benefits, then surely also with the negatives.

There can be little doubt that the same has been said when liberalism emerged. In fact, the expression "L'état, c'est moi" (I am the State) is such a statement. Nevertheless, the decrease in centralized power has not lead to chaos as you no doubt will accept. Again, all I do is to take this evolution one step further to its logical conclusion.

I finally figured it all out. You are a conservative liberal What is ironic that the belief in human selfgovernment that is inherent to liberalism suddenly stops short at the stage it is now. If one connects the dots and draw the line from the Magna Carta further down the horizon, what emerges is anarchism.

Nope, and it's getting away further for the moment due to the dumbing down of the public debate. The first opportunity will be when the last country or people has reacted to the exploitation on which the current world system is based. It moved from the local western workers to the thirld world where the first reactions are already visible, especially in South America, and no, I don't mean either Chavez or Castro. Once there's no one left to do the cheap work, the present system will collapse. Then the choice will be between anarchy and anarchism. And the latter requires an educated populace as set out in the reply to Crystal.

What is the context of these two answers ? I cannot see some of the preceding posts.

Edit: unnecessary; see following post.